Dallas Voice: “Leppert Is a Fag Lover”

Coming a bit late to this, but over at the Voice they’re taking Tom Leppert to task for a recent tweet in which he (or one of his staff) wrote, “Another mistake from Obama on DOMA. We need leaders in Washington to stand for the principle of marriage between one man and one woman.” Says John Wright of the Voice:

Clearly, Leppert is anxious to distance himself from his record in Dallas, where he hired an openly gay chief of staff, Chris Heinbaugh, and appeared in two gay Pride parades. Being a big old fag-lover could seriously hurt Leppert in a statewide Republican primary, so he’ll have to work hard to prove how much of a bigot he is.


  • B. L. Powell

    Politics is so ugly.

  • Dudosa hermano

    I may be wrong but I think that Leppert hired Heinbaugh because he was the best person for the job and not because he was gay. It is possible to treat gay people the same as anyone else without having to buy into the entire gay agenda including gay marriage or gay male homecoming queens. The gay attitude of give us what we want or you are a bigot looks dumb at best.

  • Pedro527

    Uhhh…Dudosa…you’re kind of missing the point…because Leppert knows photos of him appearing in a gay pride parade can and will be used against him (should he be taken seriously as a candidate, which I doubt…), he’s trying the oft-used early defense tactic of leaping to the opposite extreme of opinion in order to appease the more conservative Republican primary voter. This is political hypocrisy at its worst and deserves exposure.

  • Sheesh

    Marriage should be defined as one gay, racist, mullah, DISD teacher and one person that looks kinda like Tim Rodgers and Jim Schutze to be held at Dallas Cowboys Stadium in the temporary seating area on a snowy Valentine’s day by the authority vested in Tom Leppert and Michael Young reading from the last Bible purchased at Borders and a small video of the ceremony to be sold a Blockbuster. A reception afterward to be held on the Woodall Rogers Deck Park where keys to the city will be distributed after a short mayoral election debate surrounded by bobcats, feral hogs, and falling grackles.

  • Dudosa hermano

    @Pedro527 – Why does appearing in a gay pride parade as the mayor of the city make him a hypocrite by opposing gay marriage?

    Does appearing in the St. Patricks Day parade as the mayor automatically make you in favor of binge drinking and making a fool of your drunken self?

    Does going to a Cinco de Mayo festival as the mayor make you in favor of amnesty?

    Does appearing at a Martin Luther King, Jr. day celebration make you in favor of reparations?

  • Pigskinnie

    @dudosa Amen. I couldn’t have said it better myself, and I’m not much of a Leppert supporter. I have gay friends and employees and I’ve had beers at a gay bar with them, but I’m for the DOMA and don’t see it as hypocrisy.

  • jimbo


    Spoken like a true Confeder-ur, I mean, conservative.

  • Luzer

    I’ve got a gay, hispanic(non-white), dyslexic, trekkie geek as a friend; who loves drinking black & tans(while eating tacos) in our communistic dwarf’s friend, mother’s basement…good times!

  • Sammy

    Comparing gay marriage to drunk Irishmen, etc.? Aw, c’mon – surely you can come up with some better reasoning than that to oppose gay people having the same rights as everyone else.

  • Very simple. We pay taxes like everyone, so we should have rights like everyone. Mayor Tom is not the first or the last to throw us under the bus, but he WILL be on the wrong side of history.

  • Dudosa hermano

    @Sammy – If that is what you got out of my post then you are looking at it through rainbow colored glasses.

  • Sheese made me lol

  • Amy S

    Sheesh – funny, funny. But you left out Arthur and Archie as ring bearers.

  • Pedro527

    Clever analogies, Dudosa. And I would agree with you were we talking about Leppert as an individual. But we are talking about politician Leppert, the moderate, gay pride-parading ex-mayor of a Democratic-leaning city lamely attempting to show the right wing extremists who will control his party’s primary next spring that he’s “one of them.” The Voice was right to call him on it.

  • Dudosa hermano

    @Pedro527 – As an individual I sincerely doubt that Leppert would have shown up at any of the 4 events that I listed – I may be wrong but they just don’t seem to be up his alley. As the mayor of Dallas, left or right leaning, it is his job to show support to all things Dallas as long as they are not harmful and he probably made appearances at all four.
    It does not make him a bigot or a hypocrit to be in the gay-pride parade and to be opposed to gay marriage any more than it makes him a fag lover for hiring Heinbaugh.
    I prefer candidates that are willing to reveal their position on issues and then vote that way when elected. If a candidate’s position in favor of gay marriage is the only issue that is important to you then he is not your candidate. I personally feel that there are a lot more pressing issues facing this country.
    The Voice was wrong to assume Leppert’s participation in a parade defined his position on gay marriage and they are wrong to label him a bigot.

  • downtown_worker

    The Full Faith and Credit Clause, the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of other states.

    DOMA is unconstitutional because it allows states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. This is a fact, not a matter of opinion. Sorry.

  • joeat

    @Shees and @Dudosa – thanks! Brilliantly stated.

  • cp

    @Dudosa- This is where the second sentence in your first post should have stopped; “It is possible to treat gay people the same as anyone else”, right there. If you think repealing DOMA is some “gay agenda” rather than simply treating gays the same as everyone else, then no, you do not believe that “it is possible to treat gay people the same as anyone else”.

  • Dudosa hermano

    @cp – Marriage has been defined as the joining together of a man and a woman to make a family for 2,000 years and now the gays want to change that definition to accomodate gays – the gays are asking to be treated differently.

  • Neitherparty

    He isn’t gay….but his boyfriend is.

  • CraigT


    I’d like to see that 2000 year old dictionary you are using.

    lets not forget that until very recent history Marriage was defined as selling your 14 year old daughter to someone else for a few goats. And not long before that it was 1 man and however many women he could support. So which of these “traditional” marriages are you saying we should go back to?

  • Dudosa hermano

    @CraigT – Although they were not dictionaries as we know them today, the ancient Greeks wrote of marriage and of course both testaments of the Bible talk of marriage.

    In ancient times the main purpose of marriage seemed to be to continue on with the family name and maintain if not increase the population. They all wrote about a man and a woman being married as do you in the two “examples” that you give. It will take some digging to take my family tree beyond the early 1800’s but since then there are no records of 14 year old daughters traded for goats or men with multiple wives.

    Different cultures have or had traditions that seem strange such as dowry or polygamy but to deny that the definition of marriage has included a man and a woman (or women) from the beginning of recorded history to now is absurd.

  • Sammy

    @dudosa – Please clarify how two gay people who want the exact same rights as two straight people are asking to be treated differently? It appears to me that they are currently being treated differently, and are instead asking to be treated just like everyone else.

    I’m also confused by people who think that two gay folks getting married in any way/shape/form affects their own marriage. If you have been happily married for 20 or so years, just wandering along and enjoying your life – will your marriage suddenly fall apart if Bob and Ronald 3 blocks over happen to go get married?

  • I appreciate the special right to drive a car and go to a grocery store.

    I enjoy my special right to pay school taxes for other’s children.

    At this very moment, I am enjoying our special right to a cup of coffee. And thanks for letting me add Splenda and non-fat milk.

    We don’t want to seem unappreciative of the special rights you have given us.

    Per the latest census, divorce rate is around 44 percent. Special rights?

  • Dudosa hermano

    @Sammy – Here is the bottom line from my viewpoint. Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is a lot of time being wasted on this debate when our elected representatives have a lot more critical issues that they need to be dealing with.
    I’m not sure what rights gays want that are bestowed on married people that can’t be accomplished through a partnership agreement, wills, trusts, beneficiary designations …… Gays need to drop the marriage nonsense and move for gay unions or gay alliances or gay partnerships. What gays will find out is that whatever you call it – it is easy to get into and expensive to get out of it. The lawyers must be pushing for this.

  • Derek

    Well, it’s true that every new gay beneficiary an employer will now have to cover by law would reduce either the benefits or the salaries or both of traditionally married employees, but now with health care reform that won’t be a problem because everything will be mostly free. And even if not I would be happy anyway to give up some of my benefits or salary so that someone who never got them before could have them now.

    What would be even cooler, though, is if we could get a law passed that would recognize our adult brothers and sisters as a group legally entitled to benefits, too. We could call it Siblings, and so if I had good health insurance but say my sister didn’t, I could get her added at group rates to my coverage at work as my Sibling.

    And then we could do the same thing with our parents, except call it Family, so that Mom’s chemo could also be paid for by my boss.

    That’s of course if health care reform doesn’t work out, but maybe we should start the ball rolling now just in case.

  • CraigT


    What do the words separate but equal bring to mind for you?

  • Sammy

    @dudosa – Well, I’m glad that from your viewpoint, you have “defined” marriage and believe that definition should be the one everyone else follows. Actually, I’m neither here nor there on calling it “marriage” to be honest. If gay couples could just get the basic rights that straight couples get, that would be a step forward. But several states are now on the warpath to stop even that.

    And you are correct that there are many things going on right now that are more important than gay marriage. Soooo… why aren’t state and federal legislators working on those things instead of spending their time focusing on outlawing gay marriage/civil unions etc.? I don’t know – ask them.

    @Derek – Research has shown that the effects of legalizing gay marriage (or even civil unions or similar) don’t have any negative effects on the traditionally married employees. But to follow your logic, shouldn’t traditionally married couples be prevented from sharing benefits, because the supposed increase in costs would be harming single employees, causing their salaries and benefits to go down?

  • Dudosa…if time is being wasted then give us the same rights as everyone else….nothing SPECIAL just the same.

    It is going to happen, and sooner rather than later. I know it is a big pill for some to swallow.

    So let us marry and then we will move on to asking for the right to drive faster than others and have special lanes designed for us.

  • Dudosa hermano

    @CraigT – The struggle for civil rights for blacks in America, not the demand for gay marriage.

  • CraigT


    What it is is illegal. No matter who is being given the separate but equal treatment.
    There is no real difference between saying. “Gay people can have civil unions and straight people can have marriages” and saying “Black kids can have educations here and white people can have educations there. ”
    Either way you have defined one person as having less value than the other.

  • Derek

    @Sammy “Research has shown that the effects of legalizing gay marriage (or even civil unions or similar) don’t have any negative effects on the traditionally married employees.”

    How did that work? Did they use a time machine? Because, since gay marriage for everyone is not legal now and gay couples are not automatically getting additional employer benefits now, it the “reasearch” couldn’t have been done in the present.

    But maybe the “research” was done in the past, when gay marriage was legal and the cost of being forced to add additional beneficiaries to employers costs was measured and found not to force employers to reduce costs for everyone. When in the past was that? Hmmm…not ever. So there never has been research done when gay marriage was universal to show that, despite having to automatically cover more people, an employer isn’t forced to reduce benefits for everyone if he doesn’t want to eat more costs himself. Nice try, though.

    #2 No. Married people who bring the next generation into the world and raise them are valued more by society than singles or gays who cohabit. It’s, you know, discriminatory in favor of future of the human race. It’s been that way for a while, maybe a couple million years now. Employers also value married people because they’re more “stable” because having kids makes them hostages to their jobs, something gays pretending to be married aren’t.

    I know somewhere over the rainbow everybody will get everything they want while blue birds fly, but we don’t live there and we never will. Sorry. (Maybe that’s where your “research” was done, though.)

  • valued more by society

    All men are created equal.

  • Derek


    All men and women sure are created equal. After that for better or worse they tend to be valued differently by different people and groups, personally and monetarily. If you don’t value your partner any differently than anyone else, you should probably tell him, doncha think?

    I think I’m worth the same salary and benefits as my boss, but my company doesn’t think so. I even told them what you said just now, but they just stared at me. Sucks, doesn’t it?

  • Sammy

    @Derek – You crack me up! Walk around your office and ask any single person who the company “depends” on more, and you might get a very different answer than what you expect. Who is asked to stay late, because they don’t have kids at home? Who is asked to cover because mom/dad had to leave to take a kid to the doctor? Who is asked to take a business trip because mom/dad can’t get someone to sit for their kids while they go out of town?

    “Research” is based on countries and states where – shocker to you – gay marriage/civil unions are legal, or those countries/states/cities/companies offer “partner” benefits.

    A majority of Fortune 100 companies currently offer domestic partner benefits, and they are doing quite well. In fact – if your statements are true – wouldn’t those companies specifically NOT offer those benefits, and instead offer double benefits to all those very special “traditionally married” employees who are busy procreating in order to increase their already dominant “value to society”?

    Nice try though!

  • Sammy

    @Derek – Too bad your boss isn’t a single person, because then you would obviously be more valuable than him!

  • Derek


    You mean walk around my office and ask young singles who who are more easily intimidated or who want to get paid more who volunteer to do twice as much for less? I’ll grant you this though, a narcissistic young single person probably does think the company loves them for the same reason they love themselves, because they’re young and single and hip, not because their comp package may be a whole lot less. All the more reason companies who don’t have to won’t want to add any more benny packages for couples unlikely to be held together with kids.

    Companies will offer the least benefits they have to to compete. If that means matching domestic partner benefits in some areas of the country or as part of an image package, they may be reluctantly forced to do so. If you think they do so because they’re “enlightened”, see the paragraph above about gullible young singles. All the more reason not to force them to do so nationwide by law. The money to pay those extra benefits will come from somewhere, though.

    If U.S. business wanted gay marriage to be the law, it already would be, simple as that.

  • Derek….You seem like a cool guy and I know nothing I can say will change my mind. You will never ever convince me that I should have less rights than you because I am gay.
    I think we would both agree that it would not be a cool thing for you to have gay children or grandchildren as they would want your support in their marriage. It would just be a bummer. Maybe you will be some of the many gay families that are here in Dallas and that might, at least, give you a better understanding. We all want the same thing and we should all have it available to us.

  • Sammy

    @Derek – So if someone’s spouse dies or they get divorced, is their value to the company less than before?

    Contrary to your statements, there are a LOT of companies across the country that offer additional benefits in order to attract the best and brightest.

    From reading your comments, it’s clear the company you work for doesn’t follow that path.